Your recipients will receive an email with this envelope shortly and will be able to access it on trellis. You can always see your envelopes by clicking the Inbox on the top right hand corner.
Your subscription has successfully been upgraded.
“A hostile work environment sexual harassment claim requires a plaintiff employee to show:
Lewis v. City of Benicia (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 1519, 1524.
The Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) makes it unlawful for an employer to “harass an employee because of the employee’s ‘sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression,... [or] sexual orientation.’” Taylor v. Nabors Drilling USA, LP (2014) 222 Cal.App.4th 1228, 1235-36 (quoting Govt. Code, § 12940(j)(1)).
Her complaint asserts the following eleven causes of action: (1) sex/gender discrimination in violation of Californias Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (2) sex/gender harassment in violation of the FEHA; (3) age discrimination in violation of the FEHA; (4) age harassment in violation of the FEHA; (5) hostile work environment in violation of the FEHA; (6) retaliation in violation of the FEHA; (7) failure to prevent discrimination, harassment, retaliation and hostile work environment in violation of the
CATHERINE SPARKMAN VS JASON J. EMER, MD, PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
23STCV01347
May 01, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Second and Third Causes of Action for Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy Plaintiff’s second cause of action alleges wrongful termination in violation of public policy (sexual harassment) and the third cause of action alleges wrongful termination in violation of public policy (retaliation).
VEGA VS. REED
30-2016-00861087-CU-WT-CJC
Mar 13, 2017
Orange County, CA
On May 5, 2023, Plaintiff filed a 17 cause of action complaint for Disability Discrimination in Violation of the FEHA; Quid Pro Quo Sexual Harassment in Violation of the FEHA; Hostile Work Environment Sexual Harassment in Violation of the FEHA; Retaliation in Violation of the FEHA; Failure to Prevent Discrimination, Harassment, and/or Retaliation in Violation of the FEHA; Negligent Hiring, Retention, and/or Supervision; Sexual Assault and Battery; Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodations in Violation
ALEXIS CRANEY-FOSTER VS SKYHOP GLOBAL, A CORPORATION, ET AL.
23STCV10162
Apr 24, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
BACKGROUND: Plaintiff commenced this action on October 3, 2018 against Casa Escobar Malibu Beach, LLC and Daniel Arias for (1) sexual harassment in violation of FEHA; (2) sexual assault and battery; (3) failure to prevent sexual harassment, sexual assault, and sexual battery in violation of FEHA; (4) discrimination on the basis of disability in violation of FEHA; (5) discrimination on the basis of gender in violation of FEHA; (6) retaliation for complaining of discrimination on the basis of disability in violation
MELISSA MEDINA VS CASA ESCOBAR MALIBU BEACH LLC ET AL
BC724039
Jun 28, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
The Complaint asserts causes of action for (1) sexual harassment (hostile work environment) in violation of FEHA, (2) sexual harassment (quid pro quo) in violation of FEHA, (3) sex discrimination in violation of FEHA, (4) failure to prevent discrimination in violation of FEHA, (5) failure to investigate in violation of FEHA, (6) failure to permit meal breaks, (7) failure to provide rest breaks, (8) unfair business practices, and (9) conversion.
ROXANA FLORES CASTILLO VS IZOTE ENTERPRISES, INC, ET AL.
18STCV00498
Jan 08, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
On May 5, 2023, Plaintiff filed a 17 cause of action complaint for Disability Discrimination in Violation of the FEHA; Quid Pro Quo Sexual Harassment in Violation of the FEHA; Hostile Work Environment Sexual Harassment in Violation of the FEHA; Retaliation in Violation of the FEHA; Failure to Prevent Discrimination, Harassment, and/or Retaliation in Violation of the FEHA; Negligent Hiring, Retention, and/or Supervision; Sexual Assault and Battery; Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodations in Violation
ALEXIS CRANEY-FOSTER VS SKYHOP GLOBAL, A CORPORATION, ET AL.
23STCV10162
Feb 01, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
On June 17, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Sher Gelb, Heerdt (collectively Defendants), and Does 1 through 50, asserting eight causes of action: (1) Hostile Work Environment Sexual Harassment in Violation of FEHA; (2) Quid Pro Quo Sexual Harassment in Violation of FEHA; (3) Discrimination on the Basis of Sex/Gender in Violation of FEHA; (4) Retaliation in Violation of FEHA; (5) Failure to Prevent Harassment, Discrimination, or Retaliation in Violation of FEHA; (6) Whistleblower Retaliation in Violation
AMELIA AVITIA VS KEITH HEERDT, ET AL.
22VECV00827
Aug 26, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
BACKGROUND: Plaintiff commenced this action on October 3, 2018 against Casa Escobar Malibu Beach, LLC and Daniel Arias for (1) sexual harassment in violation of FEHA; (2) sexual assault and battery; (3) failure to prevent sexual harassment, sexual assault, and sexual battery in violation of FEHA; (4) discrimination on the basis of disability in violation of FEHA; (5) discrimination on the basis of gender in violation of FEHA; (6) retaliation for complaining of discrimination on the basis of disability in violation
MELISSA MEDINA VS CASA ESCOBAR MALIBU BEACH LLC ET AL
BC724039
Sep 11, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
Baird (1998) 18 Cal.4th 640, 645-646 [defining FEHA harassment as conduct outside the scope of necessary job performance, conduct presumably engaged in for personal gratification, because of meanness or bigotry, or for other personal motives.]; Roby v. McKesson Corp. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 686, 706 n. 8 [defining quid pro quo sexual harassment as merely a type of sexual harassment under the FEHA].) Defendants contend the FAC fails to allege sufficient facts to state a claim for sexual harassment.
ANNA MICHELLE HAGEVOORT VS CARDINAL HEALTH, INC., A CORPORATION, ET AL.
20STCV46790
Jun 13, 2023
day s
Los Angeles County, CA
This action for (1) sexual harassment in violation of FEHA, (2) retaliation in violation of FEHA, (3) constructive termination in violation of public policy, (4) sexual battery, (5) creation of hostile work environment in violation of FEHA and (6) failure to take reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment in violation of FEHA is brought by Plaintiff (“P”) Terri Webb a former employee of Defendant (“D”) Terra Nova Planning and Research Inc. based upon alleged verbal and physical harassment and retaliation
PSC 1505991
Feb 21, 2017
Riverside County, CA
Further, the demurrer is also sustained because the Complaint fails to allege sexual harassment by Tarantino personally. The Demurrer is sustained without leave to amend as to the second cause of action for sexual harassment in violation of the Unruh Act. The Unruh Act does not apply in employment or quasi-employment contexts. (See, e.g., Alcorn v.
JHONA MATHEWS VS. THE ARCHDIOCESE OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN ET AL
CGC14537040
Aug 18, 2014
San Francisco County, CA
REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT BACKGROUND: Plaintiff commenced this action on October 3, 2018 against Casa Escobar Malibu Beach, LLC and Daniel Arias for (1) sexual harassment in violation of FEHA; (2) sexual assault and battery; (3) failure to prevent sexual harassment, sexual assault, and sexual battery in violation of FEHA; (4) discrimination on the basis of disability in violation of FEHA; (5) discrimination on the basis of gender in violation of FEHA; (6) retaliation for complaining of discrimination
MELISSA MEDINA VS CASA ESCOBAR MALIBU BEACH LLC ET AL
BC724039
Jul 30, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
of FEHA – hostile work environment; (2) quid pro quo sexual harassment; (3) failure to take reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment; (4) sexual battery in violation of California Civil Code § 1708.5; (5) sex discrimination; (6) disability discrimination; (7) retaliation in violation of FEHA; (8) retaliation in violation of Labor Code § 1102.5; (9) violation of Government Code § 12964.5; (10) wrongful termination in violation of FEHA; (11) wrongful termination in violation of public policy; (12) intentional
JANE DOE VS SKYLER LUCCI, ET AL.
19STCV41441
Sep 17, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
(“Defendant” or “Team”)’s motion for summary judgment or in the alternative summary adjudication of Plaintiff Ariel McBean (“Plaintiff” or “McBean”)’s claims for (1) violation of Civil Code Section 1708.85; (2) sexual harassment (violation of Government Code § 12940); (3) violation of FEHA (Government Code § 12900, et seq.) – retaliation for engaging in protected activity; and (4) violation of FEHA (Government Code § 12940(j)) – quid pro quo sexual harassment).
MCBEAN VS QUALSPEC, ET AL.
MSC19-02278
Oct 30, 2023
Contra Costa County, CA
To be sure, Plaintiffs Complaint for sexual harassment arises under violation of FEHA, which defines harassment because of sex as including sexual harassment and gender harassment that need not be motivated by sexual desire. (Cal. Gov. Code § 12940(j)(4)(c).)
STEPHANIE ABUNDIS VS COMPREHENSIVE SURGICAL SOLUTIONS, LLC, ET AL.
23STCV17834
Nov 08, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Following an investigation, Defendant concluded that the Hispanic, male employee’s conduct constituted sexual harassment in violation of Defendant’s sexual harassment policy. ( Ibid. ) Rather than terminate the employee, Defendant chose to provide the employee with a “verbal warning”.
JONATHAN SAXMAN VS CREWS OF CALIFORNIA, INC.
19STCV25531
Sep 02, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
Second, under Matthews, if the supervisor participates in the sexual harassment or substantially assists or encourages continued harassment, the supervisor is personally liable under the FEHA as an aider and abettor of the harasser. Third, under the FEHA, the employer is vicariously and strictly liable for sexual harassment by a supervisor.
MAKI VS. SASAKI
30-2018-00983846-CU-OE-CJC
Jan 25, 2019
Orange County, CA
The FAC asserts causes of action for (1) sexual harassment in violation of FEHA against all Defendants, (2) sex/gender discrimination in violation of FEHA against GCC and GCCD (“GCCD Defendants”), (3) failure to prevent harassment in violation of FEHA against GCCD Defendants, (4) wrongful termination in violation of public policy against GCCD Defendants, (5) retaliation against GCCD Defendants, (6) sexual harassment in violation of the Sex Equity in Education Act against GCCD Defendants, (7) intentional infliction
ASHLEY FOWLER VS CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGES, ET AL.
19STCV08661
Jan 06, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
If the issue which is the controversy subject to arbitration is severable, the stay may be with respect to that issue only. ( Ibid. ) In this action, Plaintiffs allege one cause of action for Aiding and Abetting Sexual Harassment in Violation of FEHA (Gov. Code § 12940, subd. (i)) against the Defendants, who are individual members of the board of directors of Guess ?, Inc. (Guess). (Comp. ¶¶ 7-14.)
22STCV-9391
Jul 21, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
(c) Wordin’s Termination R2R argues Wordin’s termination was proper because Wordin failed to comply with R2R’s directive that he not (1) withdraw funds from R2R’s bank accounts and (2) contact employees in relation to a sexual harassment survey.
RIDE 2 RECOVERY VS JOHN WORDIN
18STCV03056
Apr 13, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
In the Complaint Plaintiff asserts twelve causes of action including (1) sexual harassment; (2) retaliation; (3) sexual discrimination; (4) failure to prevent sexual harassment; (5) constructive wrongful termination and retaliation in violation of public policy; (6) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (7) negligent infliction of emotional distress; (8) negligent hiring, retention and supervision; (9) breach of contract; (10) fraudulent misrepresentation; (11) services rendered and (12) quantum meruit
LEYLA MANSOURI VS SHIKA'S AUTO GALLERY ET AL
BC662524
Jul 09, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
Plaintiff alleges the following causes of action: (1) discrimination in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”); (2) retaliation; (3) sexual harassment; and (4) violation of public policy. Defendant demurs to the third cause of action. DISCUSSION A demurrer challenges only the legal sufficiency of the complaint, not the truth of its factual allegations or the plaintiff's ability to prove those allegations. (Picton v. Anderson Union High Sch. Dist. (1996) 50 Cal. App. 4th 726, 732.)
DENISE STILWELL VS TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX ET AL
BC690958
Apr 13, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
Accordingly, plaintiff sufficiently alleges that he complained to Davis and Majors about a violation of FEHA, upon which a violation of Labor Code § 1102.5(b) claim can be maintained. (Gov. Code § 12940(j)(4)(C) [unlawful harassment because of sex includes sexual harassment].) The demurrer to the first cause of action is OVERRULED. C.
MICHAEL MENDEZ VS MOTION PICTURE GRIPS, LOCAL 80, INTERNATIONAL ALLIANCE OF THEATRICAL STAGE EMPLOYEES, ET AL.
21STCV23739
Nov 16, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF FEHA 6. FAILURE TO PREVENT DISCRIMINATION AND RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF FEHA 7. INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS 8. NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS.
PHUOC CONG NGUYEN VS SWIFT MEDIA ENTERTAINMENT, INC., ET AL.
22STCV13865
Mar 30, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Here, Plaintiffs claim for sexual harassment, FEHA-based related claims, violation of Civil Code, §§ 51.7, 51.9 and 52.1, Labor Code, § 1102.5, and common law torts come within the broad scope of the language defining Covered Claims above.
SANDRA RAMIREZ VS ANTHONY INTERNATIONAL, ET AL.
23STCV22900
Apr 18, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
Retaliation in violation of FEHA To establish a prima facie case of retaliation under FEHA, plaintiff must show that: • plaintiff engaged in a protected activity; • the employer subjected plaintiff to an adverse employment action; and • a causal link exists between the protected activity and the employer's action. [Passantino v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Products, Inc. (9th Cir. 2000) 212 F3d 493, 506 (Title VII); Yanowitz v. L'Oreal USA, Inc. (2005) 36 C4th 1028, 1044 (FEHA); Lewis v.
MANLY VS. EXCELSIOR NUTRITION, INC.
30-2020-01131220
Sep 10, 2020
Orange County, CA
Factual Background: The operative Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) filed on September 6, 2017 alleges: 1. sexual harassment (FEHA) (against all) 2. sexual harassment (Civil Code §51 and 51.9) (against all) 3. wrongful termination in violation of public policy (against Century 21 and Bachelor) 4. retaliation (FEHA) (against all) 5. negligent hiring/retention (against Century 21 and Bachelor) 6. intentional infliction of emotional distress (against all) On August 14, 2018, Plaintiff dismissed the 5th cause of
GOFF VS. PREFERRED
MCC1600985
Jan 31, 2019
Raquel A. Marquez
Riverside County, CA
First Cause of Action – Sexual Harassment in Violation of the FEHA The FEHA prohibits harassment of an employee because of sex. (Cal. Gov't Code §12940(j)(1).) Here, Plaintiff is alleging sexual harassment based on a hostile work environment theory involving sexual favoritism. “For [hostile work environment] sexual harassment to be actionable, it must be sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of [the victim's] employment and create an abusive working environment.” (Fisher v.
MARTHA QUIROZ VS I A T S E LOCAL 44 ET AL
BC644141
Jun 16, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
The Court expresses no opinion at this time on whether plaintiff can state a valid claim for retaliation in violation of FEHA because she made a complaint based on sexual harassment, or any other valid FEHA-based claim. On this demurrer, the Court can only respond to what is actually pleaded, and what is actually raised in the demurrer; as of this time, no valid cause of action for retaliation in violation of FEHA has been stated.” (Ruling, Aug. 4, 2015, p. 8.)
QUIANA FOLEY VS SB BOOKS INC ET AL
15CV00589
Oct 27, 2015
Santa Barbara County, CA
The demurrer to the first cause of action (“COA”) of sexual harassment and third cause of action of failure to prevent sexual harassment is OVERRULED on the ground that Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged equitable estoppel. Additionally, Defendant Marshall’s demurrer to the first COA of sexual harassment on the ground that Plaintiff has failed to adequately plead the Plaintiff suffered any “severe” or “pervasive” harassment as required by the FEHA is OVERULED.
SHERRI JONES VS STOCKTON UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT POLICE DEPARTMENT
STK-CV-UNPI-2019-0008075
Feb 22, 2021
San Joaquin County, CA
On May 8, 2023, Plaintiff Jane Doe filed a complaint on May 8, 2023 against Defendants alleging (1) sexual battery; (2) sexual assault; (3) false imprisonment; (4) gender violence; (5) sexual harassment in violation of FEHA; (6) discrimination based on sex and gender in violation of FEHA; (7) failure to prevent harassment and discrimination from occurring in violation of FEHA; (8) retaliation in violation of FEHA; (9) constructive discharge in violation of public policy; (10) harassment and aiding and abetting
JANE DOE VS JACK IN THE BOX INC., ET AL.
23STCV10282
Jan 22, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
(c) Wordin’s Termination R2R argues Wordin’s termination was proper because Wordin failed to comply with R2R’s directive that he not (1) withdraw funds from R2R’s bank accounts and (2) contact employees in relation to a sexual harassment survey.
RIDE 2 RECOVERY VS JOHN WORDIN
18STCV03056
Apr 28, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff now brings causes of action for (1) FEHA Disparate Treatment Discrimination, (2) FEHA Quid Pro Quo Sexual Harassment, (3) FEHA Work Environment Harassment, (4) FEHA Retaliation, (5) FEHA Failure to Prevent Harassment, Discrimination, or Retaliation, and (6) Labor Code 1102.5 retaliation. Defendant Mania Topanga Mall now demurrers to each cause of action in the FAC. Plaintiff opposed. TENTATIVE RULING: Defendants Demurrer to the First Amended Complaint is OVERRULED in its entirety.
KRYSTAL MERLIN VS MANIA TOPANGA MALL, LLC
21STCV04721
Oct 09, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
She filed her Complaint on 7/12/21, First Amended Complaint (FAC) on 12/3/21 and Second Amended Complaint (SAC) on 3/22/22 alleging causes of action for (1) discrimination on the basis of sex in violation of FEHA (against County only); (2) failure to prevent discrimination and harassment in violation of FEHA (against County only); (3) sexual harassment in violation of FEHA (against all defendants); (4) retaliation in violation of Labor Code section 1102.5 (against County only); (5) intentional infliction of
CHANDLER VS COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
CVRI2103362
May 25, 2022
Riverside County, CA
Plaintiff asserts claims for sexual harassment in violation of Civil Code § 51.9; sexual harassment in violation of FEHA (hostile work environment), Govt Code §§ 12955(a), (d); quid pro quo sexual harassment in violation of Govt Code §12940(j); and failure to prevent hostile work environment and harassment in violation of Govt Code §12940(k).
VANESSA BARRON, ET AL. VS LOS ANGELES APPARE, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL.
23STCV15452
Feb 01, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
The complaints first cause of action is for sex discrimination in violation of FEHA. The second cause of action is for sexual harassment in violation of FEHA. Plaintiff does not allege a cause of action for retaliation under FEHA. The complaint is clear enough.
LANA MCLEOD VS LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
21STCV25597
Oct 27, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
On October 13, 2017, plaintiff filed a complaint for (1) retaliation under FEHA, (2) retaliation under Labor Code section 1102.5, (3) gender discrimination under FEHA, (4) violation of the California Fair Pay Act, (5) failure to engage in interactive process under FEHA, (6) failure to provide reasonable accommodation for disability under FEHA, (7) violation of the California Family Rights Act, and (8) wrongful termination in violation of public policy.
JEAN HALSELL VS B&V ENTERPRISES INC
BC679601
May 22, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
The FAC asserts causes of action for: Sexual Harassment in Violation of FEHA (Violation of Gov. Code § 12940(j)); Sexual Discrimination in Violation of FEHA (Violation of Gov. Code § 12940(a)); Sexual Battery (against Newman); Disability Discrimination in Violation of FEHA (Violation of Gov. Code § 12940(a)); Retaliation in Violation of FEHA (Violation of Gov.
GLENDA JOHNSON VS JEREMY NEWMAN, ET AL.
19STCV29112
Aug 05, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
They were: 2 (1) Retaliation in Violation of Health & Safety Code § 1278.5; (2) Discrimination in Violation of 3 Labor Code § 6310; (3) Sexual Harassment in Violation of FEHA; (4) Failure to Prevent 4 Discrimination and Harassment, in violation of FEHA (Gov’t Code § 12940(k)); (5) Retaliation 5 in Violation of FEHA (Gov’t Code § 12940(h)); (6) Violation of Business & Professions Code 6 § 510; (7) Violation of Business & Professions Code § 2056; (8) Wrongful Termination in 7 Violation
U NAM VS. REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
34-2013-00138396-CU-WT-GDS
Mar 04, 2024
Sacramento County, CA
United States Gypsum Co. (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1547, 1564 [sexual harassment occurs when “sex is used as a weapon to create a hostile work environment” regardless of sexual desire].) Finally, defendant’s argument that plaintiff has not alleged Mr. Bankson’s status as a co-employee also lacks merit; FEHA expressly applies to sexual harassment in the workplace by “nonemployees.” (Gov. Code, § 12940, subd.
SASCHA ROGERS VS. CASSANDRA BANKSON, LLC
C22-02483
Feb 08, 2023
Contra Costa County, CA
Virzi, and Mark Anthony Sarno for (1) sexual harassment in violation of FEHA, (2) retaliation in violation of FEHA, (3) gender discrimination in violation of FEHA, (4) failure to prevent sexual harassment, (5) retaliation in violation of false impersonation laws, (6) IIED, and (7) NIED. Defendant Argosy is referred to as Dream Center Educations Holdings, Inc.
TITO A THOMAS VS EDUCATION MANAGEMENT CORPORATION EDMC ET AL
BC683000
Mar 07, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
FEHA Discrimination (Sex/Gender); 2. FEHA Harassment (Sex/Gender); 3. FEHA Discrimination (Disability); 4. FEHA Failure to Accommodate Disability; 5. FEHA Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process; 6. FEHA Retaliation; 7. Violation of the California Family Rights Act (CFRA); 8. Retaliation in Violation of the California Family Rights Act (CFRA); 9. FEHA Failure to Take All Reasonable Steps to Prevent Discrimination, Harassment, and/or Retaliation; 10. Violation of Lab. Code § 1102.5; 11.
BRIANNA FLORES VS SUPER CENTER CONCEPTS, INC, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.
23STCV31671
Apr 17, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
Sexual Harassment in Violation of FEHA Quid Pro Quo 2. Sexual Harassment in Violation of FEHA Hostile Work Environment 3. Discrimination Based on Sex in Violation of FEHA 4. Failure to Prevent Discrimination and Harassment 5. Retaliation 6. Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress 7. Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy 2.
VICTORIA ROSALES VS SOLOMON LAKTINEH, MD, ET AL.
22LBCV00011
Aug 23, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
On May 31, 2022, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC), asserting causes of action for (1) sexual battery in violation of Civil Code § 1708.5, (2) battery, (3) domestic violence in violation of Civil Code § 1708.6, (4) assault, (5) sexual harassment, (6) gender and sex discrimination in violation of Government Code § 12940(A), (7) gender violence ( Civil Code § 52.4), (8 ) sexual harassment by a physician ( Civil Code §§ 51.9, 52), (9 ) professional negligence/medical malpractice, (10) failure
JANE DOE VS RAMY ELIAS, M.D., ET AL.
21STCV46946
May 31, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
.: 22STCV23490 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT MOVING PARTY : Plaintiff Christopher Deloach RESPONDING PARTY : No opposition On July 20, 2022, Plaintiff, Christopher Deloach, filed a Complaint against Defendant, Boondock, Inc. dba Texino, for (1) Sexual Harassment and Hostile Work Environment in Violation of FEHA, (2) Unlawful Retaliation in Violation of FEHA, (3) Discrimination
CHRISTOPHER DELOACH VS BOONDOCK, INC.
22STCV23490
Dec 13, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
The continuing violation doctrine may be applied to claims of sexual harassment under the FEHA. (Birschtein v. United Motor Manufacturing, Inc. (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 994, 1000-1007.) In Richards, a disabled employee brought a FEHA action for disability harassment and discrimination, alleging that over a four-year period, her employer harassed her and failed to reasonably accommodate her disability. (Richards, supra, 26 Cal.4th at 802-810.)
SHERRI JONES VS STOCKTON UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT POLICE DEPARTMENT
STK-CV-UNPI-2019-0008075
Jul 08, 2021
San Joaquin County, CA
On May 31, 2022, Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint (FAC), asserting causes of action for (1) sexual battery in violation of Civil Code § 1708.5, (2) battery, (3) domestic violence in violation of Civil Code § 1708.6, (4) assault, (5) sexual harassment, (6) gender and sex discrimination in violation of Government Code § 12940(A), (7) gender violence ( Civil Code § 52.4), (8 ) sexual harassment by a physician ( Civil Code §§ 51.9, 52), (9 ) professional negligence/medical malpractice,
JANE DOE VS RAMY ELIAS, M.D., ET AL.
21STCV46946
Nov 07, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Third Cause of Action ISSUE 6: Plaintiff’s third cause of action for Sexual Harassment in Violation of FEHA fails as a matter of law because Plaintiff cannot establish that Bauer was his supervisor and that Bausch & Strobel knew about the allegedly harassing conduct. ISSUE 7: Plaintiff’s third cause of action for Sexual Harassment in Violation of FEHA fails as a matter of law because Plaintiff cannot establish the alleged comments occurred in a work-related context.
DARIN JAMES VS BAUSCH & STROEBEL MACHINE COMPANY, A CORPORATION, ET AL.
18TRCV00004
Sep 14, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
On May 5, 2023, Plaintiff filed a 17 cause of action complaint for Disability Discrimination in Violation of the FEHA; Quid Pro Quo Sexual Harassment in Violation of the FEHA; Hostile Work Environment Sexual Harassment in Violation of the FEHA; Retaliation in Violation of the FEHA; Failure to Prevent Discrimination, Harassment, and/or Retaliation in Violation of the FEHA; Negligent Hiring, Retention, and/or Supervision; Sexual Assault and Battery; Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodations in Violation
ALEXIS CRANEY-FOSTER VS SKYHOP GLOBAL, A CORPORATION, ET AL.
23STCV10162
Apr 10, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
It is well established that the public policies set forth in FEHA are sufficient to support a cause of action for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy. As such, Plaintiff’s harassment claim supports her wrongful discharge claim in this regard. These allegations are sufficient at the pleading stage to state a claim for sexual harassment. The demurrer to the second cause of action is OVERRULED. 3.
BRIDGITTE RODGERS VS COUNSELING 4 KIDS ET AL
BC647647
Aug 23, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
A” Well, sexual harassment, I didn’t believe it was sexual harassment. But there was jokes in the operating room that pertained to sex.” (See Evidence in support of Motion, Exh. D, Plaintiff’s deposition, p. 36, line 25 – p. 37, lines 1-4.) Plaintiff does not dispute this testimony or offer any testimony to rebut that she believes she was, in fact, sexually harassed. As such, summary adjudication is GRANTED as to the 5th cause of action for sexual harassment.
COTA VS. SOUTH COAST OUTPATIENT SURGERY CENTER
30-2018-00988156
Sep 10, 2020
Orange County, CA
Code Of Civil Proc. 438) MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS RE 12TH CAUSE OF ACTION SEXUAL HARASSMENT - DENIED. RE 14TH CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATION OF FEHA FAILURE TO TAKE CORRECTIVE ACTION - HEARING REQUIRED. RE 15TH CAUSE OF ACTION INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS - DENIED. (CW)
ANNA CARR VS. GORDON AND REES LLP ET AL
CGC01401234
Jul 03, 2002
San Francisco County, CA
First, Second, and Third Causes of Action – Sexual Harassment in Violation of Govt. Code §§12940 et seq.; Hostile Work Environment in Violation of Govt. Code §§12940 et seq.; and Failure to Prevent Discrimination, Harassment and Retaliation in Violation of Govt.
TONEE J. NAVARRO VS. INJOY LIFE RESOURCES, INC.
VC066974
Oct 15, 2020
Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff claims she refused these advances and Defendant committed the FEHA and Labor Code violations in response. Plaintiff asserts the entire action should be exempt from arbitration under EFASASHA. Defendant argues that only the first and fifth causes of action for sexual harassment and retaliation in violation of FEHA are subject to the Act. No California Court of Appeal cases address this issue; both parties cite only New York federal district court cases in their favor.
CHRISTINA RAMIREZ VS LAW OFFICES OF ADAM ZOLONZ, APC, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.
23STCV16604
Nov 09, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
overtime compensation, and (13) FEHA violations based upon sexual harassment.
GIOVANNI VILLEGAS, ET AL. VS CITEA DRINKS, ET AL.
22AHCV00338
Jul 17, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
For the first cause of action sexual harassment, the elements for a sexual harassment based on a hostile working environment are: (1) plaintiff belongs to a protected group; (2) plaintiff was subject to unwelcome sexual harassment; (3) the harassment was based on sex; (4) the harassment was sufficiently pervasive to alter the conditions of employment; and (5) respondeat superior. (Jones v.
SPAKOWSKY VS HEALTHGRADES OPERATING COMPANY INC
CVRI2000679
Jan 18, 2023
Riverside County, CA
procedural history Plaintiff filed the original Complaint on July 17, 2020, alleging nine causes of action: FEHA discrimination based on sex FEHA discrimination based on race FEHA discrimination based on religion FEHA harassment based on sex FEHA harassment – hostile work environment FEHA retaliation FEHA failure to prevent discrimination, retaliation, and harassment FEHA wrongful constructive discharge Wrongful constructive discharge in violation of public policy On September 28, 2020, Plaintiff filed
ERICA ROBINSON VS OTOY, INC., ET AL.
20STCV27066
May 03, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
Plaintiff asserts causes of action for (1) FEHA gender discrimination, (2) FEHA sexual harassment, (3) FEHA failure to prevent sexual harassment, (4) FEHA failure to correct sexual harassment, and (5) wrongful termination in violation of public policy. All COAs are asserted against VF; Sicari is named as to the 2nd COA only. On 6/17/15, Plaintiff filed an amendment correcting Sicari’s name as Alberto aka Alfredo Sicari.
VERONICA TORRES VS VF OUTDOOR INC ET AL
BC573963
Oct 26, 2016
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
Plaintiff alleges the following causes of action in the FA C: (1) discrimination in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”); (2) retaliation; (3) sexual harassment; and (4) violation of public policy. Zwissig Defendants demur to the third cause of action on the grounds that Plaintiff fails to plead facts sufficient to support a cause of action for sexual harassment. REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE Zwissig Defendants’ request for judicial notice is DENIED. (Cal. Evid. Code §452, 453.)
DENISE STILWELL VS TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX ET AL
BC690958
Aug 03, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
The complaint alleges claims for sexual harassment in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA"), violation of the California Family Rights Act, and wrongful termination. Plaintiff also alleges Labor Code violations for, among other things, failing to pay wages and business expenses upon her termination. Park West is located in Rancho Santa Margarita in the County of Orange. Tracy Decl., ¶ 5.
PIGOTT VS PARK WEST LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE INC
37-2019-00006685-CU-WT-CTL
Jul 18, 2019
San Diego County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
In the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), Plaintiff alleges seven causes of action for: (1) sexual harassment in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”); (2) sex/gender discrimination in violation of the FEHA; (3) retaliation in violation of the FEHA; (4) failure to take all reasonable steps to prevent discrimination, harassment and retaliation in violation of the FEHA; (5) wrongful termination in violation of public policy; (6) intentional infliction of emotional distress and (7) negligent infliction
SIA AMBER SOUTHERN VS TESSIE CLEVELAND COMMUNITY SERVICES CO
BC690804
Jun 19, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
; (8) Sexual Harassment in Violation of the FEHA; (9) Race and National Origin Harassment in Violation of the FEHA; (10) Retaliation in violation of FEHA; (11) Failure to Prevent Discrimination and Harassment in Violation of FEHA; (12) Failure to Provide Complete Access to Employee Personnel File and Payroll Records in Violation of California Labor Code 226, 432 and 1198.5.
SMITHLINE ASHLEY VS GNH TOPANGA INC., ET AL.
19VECV01637
May 06, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
SEX DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF FEHA 2. NATIONAL ORIGIN DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF FEHA 3, SEXUAL HARASSMENT/HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT 4. RETALIATION/PROTECTED ACTIVITY 5. FAILURE TO PREVENT DISCRIMINATION AND HARASSMENT 6. AIDING AND ABETTING 7. WRONGFUL TERMINATION IN VIOLATION OF CAL, GOV. CODE § 12940(H) 8. VIOLATION OF UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW, BUS, & PROF. CODE § 17200 ET SEQ.
ERIKA VALADEZ ET AL VS IN N OUT BURGERS ET AL
BC675696
Jan 12, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
In the TAC, Rojas asserts causes of action for sexual harassment in violation of FEHA, retaliation in violation of FEHA, wrongful termination in violation of public policy, failure to prevent discrimination and harassment in violation of FEHA, and unfair business practices. Defendant Din Tai Fung (Glendale) Restaurant, LLC[1] (“DTF”) now demurs to each and every cause of action. Rojas opposes. Request for Judicial Notice The Court grants DTF’s request for judicial notice as to Exhibits A and B.
NORMA ROJAS VS DIN TAI FUNG ET AL
BC697069
Dec 04, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
On February 3, 2020, Plaintiff filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against BBC, Verdugo and Does 1-50 for: Sex Harassment in Violation of FEHA Sex Discrimination in Violation of FEHA Retaliation in Violation of FEHA Wrongful Termination Failure to Furnish Complaint Wage Statements Failure to Pay Overtime Compensation Failure to Pay Meal and Rest Period Premiums Waiting Time Penalties A Case Management Conference is set for December 8, 2020.
MARAM GHAZALEH VS BEST BEVERAGE CATERING, ET AL.
20PSCV00099
Dec 08, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
Plaintiff commenced this action on October 3, 2018 against Casa Escobar Malibu Beach, LLC and Daniel Arias for (1) sexual harassment in violation of FEHA; (2) sexual assault and battery; (3) failure to prevent sexual harassment, sexual assault, and sexual battery in violation of FEHA; (4) discrimination on the basis of disability in violation of FEHA; (5) discrimination on the basis of gender in violation of FEHA; (6) retaliation for complaining of discrimination on the basis of disability in violation of FEHA
MELISSA MEDINA VS CASA ESCOBAR MALIBU BEACH LLC ET AL
BC724039
Jun 28, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
These allegations do not specify if the superiors agreed that the conduct amounted to sexual harassment. Nor do these allegations show the type of conduct Marshall was engaged in. Thus, the Court does not have sufficient facts to find that Plaintiff has alleged a claim for sexual harassment based on conduct that occurred after June 27, 2017. Therefore, the Court finds that the demurrer to cause of action three for sexual harassment is sustained.
MAUPIN VS CONTRA COSTA FIRE
MSC19-00496
Jun 15, 2020
Burch
Contra Costa County, CA
On April 7, 2023, Plaintiff, Jane Doe, filed a complaint against Defendants, Allied, HRL, and Beveridge, for: (1) Sexual Harassment Hostile Work Environment in Violation of FEHA, (2) Sexual Harassment Quid Pro Quo in Violation of FEHA, (3) Failure to Prevent Harassment in Violation of FEHA, (4) Gender Discrimination, (5) Sexual Battery; (6) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, and (7) Retaliation.
JANE DOE VS ALLIED UNIVERSAL SECURITY SERVICES, LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.
23STCV07728
Jan 09, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
The Complaint asserts causes of action for (1) sexual assault and battery, (2) discrimination in violation of the UCRA and FEHA, (3) harassment in violation of FEHA and Civil Code section 51.9, (4) violation of the Ralph Act, (5) interference with the exercise of civil rights in violation of the Bane Act, (6) gender violence in violation of Civil Code section 52.4, (7) retaliation in violation of FEHA, (8) failure to provide reasonable accommodation in violation of FEHA, (9) failure to engage in the interactive
JANE DOE VS SKANSKA USA CIVIL WEST CALIFORNIA DISTRICT, INC., ET AL.
19STCV33834
Mar 08, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
Plaintiffs filed a Complaint on June 22, 2020, alleging eight (8) causes of action sounding in: (1) Hostile Work Environment and Sexual Harassment in violation of FEHA and Government Code § 12940(j); (2) Failure to Prevent Discrimination, Harassment, and Retaliation in Violation of FEHA; (3) Retaliation in Violation of FEHA and Government Code § 12940(h); (4) Whistleblower Retaliation in Violation of Labor Code § 1102.5; (5) Whistleblower Termination in Violation of Public Policy; (6) Intentional Infliction
ROBERT NORLAND VS CRANEVEYOR CORP., ET AL.
20BBCV00392
Oct 30, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
Harassment & Hostile Work Environment in Violation of FEHA 2. Wrongful Termination In Violation of Public Policy 3. Failure to Prevent Harassment in Violation of FEHA 4. Violation of Meal & Rest Breaks 5. Violation of Private Attorney General Act (PAGA) 6. Failure to Provide Accurate Paystubs 7. Waiting Time Penalties in Violation of Labor Codes 201-204 8. Failure to Timely Provide Personnel & Payroll Records
KATELYN NGUYEN VS THE BOILING CRAB, A CALIFORNIA BUSINESS
21PSCV01009
Nov 02, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
(SAC) The SAC alleges the following causes of action: (1) sexual harassment in violation of the Fair Housing Employment Act (FEHA), (2) failure to investigate and prevent sexual harassment, (3) retaliation in violation of the FEHA, (4) harassment and discrimination in violation of Civil Code §51 and Civil Code § 52, (5) violation of Labor Code § 1102.5, (6) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (7) negligent hiring, supervision and retention.
MELANIE MCDADE-DICKENS VS CITY OF INGLEWOOD, A MUNICIPAL ENTITY, ET AL.
21STCV02999
Dec 21, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
In their motion, defendants challenge plaintiff’s fourth cause of action for failure to remedy, prevent, and investigate sexual harassment in violation of Government Code Sections 12940(k), 12950, and 12950.1 of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”).
IVONNE HERNANDEZ VS DP INVESTMENTS ET AL
1380738
Sep 12, 2011
Santa Barbara County, CA
Fifth Cause of Action – Sexual Harassment (MSA Issue No. 1) As to Clark's fifth cause of action for sexual harassment under California's Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA"), Chini raises three arguments. First, Chini asserts he cannot be held liable for sexual harassment because neither he nor the company for which he is Vice President, Bainbridge Capital, Inc. ("Bainbridge"), was Clark's employer.
BAINBRIDGE CAPITAL INC VS VOLT MANAGEMENT CORP
37-2020-00008514-CU-BC-CTL
Nov 17, 2023
San Diego County, CA
The causes of action are: (1) FAILURE TO PROVIDE MEAL PERIODS; (2) FAILURE TO PROVIDE REST PERIODS; (3) FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME; (4) FAILURE TO PAY ALL WAGES; (5) FAILURE TO PAY WAITING TIME PENALTIES; (6) FAILURE TO PROVIDE ACCURATE ITEMIZED WAGE STATEMENTS; (7) UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICE; (8) INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS; (9) SEXUAL DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF THE FEHA; (10) SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN VIOLATION OF THE FEHA; (11) RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF FEHA; (12) FAILURE
MARIA BERETTA VS LAKESIDE RESTAURANT & LOUNGE, ET AL.
19STCV23318
May 22, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
(“FloQast”) brings this demurrer to the fourth cause of action (sexual harassment/harassment in violation of FEHA) of the Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) of Plaintiff Megan Hoffman (“Hoffman”). Hoffman opposes. Discussion A demurrer can be used only to challenge defects that appear on the face of the pleading under attack or from matters outside the pleading that are judicially noticeable. ((Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.)
MEGAN HOFFMAN VS FLOQAST INC ET AL
BC676447
Sep 05, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
(Republic), as well as Peter Pouwels, asserting the following causes of action: (1) Sexual harassment under the Fair Employment and Housing Act, Government Code sections 12900, et seq.
LUIS VENEGAS, ET AL. VS BROWING-FERRIS INDUSTRIES OF CALIFORNIA, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.
21STCV11027
Sep 25, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
This is a wage & hour, PAGA case with wrongful termination/sexual harassment allegations. On June 8, 2023, Plaintiff filed an individual and representative action Complaint alleging (1) FEHA Sex Harassment; (2) FEHA Sex Discrimination; (3) Failure to Prevent Same; (4) Meal Periods; (5) Rest Periods; (6) Wage Statements; (7) Waiting Time Penalties; (8) Unfair Competition; (9) Violation of PAGA; and (10) Wrongful Termination. Defendant moves to compel arbitration.
CUNNINGHAM VS LOMAS SANTA FE COUNTRY CLUB
37-2023-00023983-CU-WT-CTL
Mar 01, 2024
San Diego County, CA
Movant argues that the sixth cause of action must be dismissed because it was added in violation of a prior court order. Movant’s arguments are not compelling. Each is addressed below. 1. The Fourth Cause of Action a. Is the fourth cause of action "time barred"? Before suing for violation of the FEHA in court, a plaintiff must timely file an administrative complaint with the DFEH within one year of the alleged unlawful conduct. (Gov’t. Code § 12960.)
RODRIGUES V. SAVE MART SUPERMARKETS, ET AL.
17CECG03478
Sep 25, 2020
Fresno County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges eleven causes of action for: (1) sexual harassment in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), (2) sexual harassment – hostile work environment in violation of the FEHA; (3) sexual discrimination in violation of the FEHA; (4) violation of the Ralph Civil Rights Act (the “Ralph Act,” Civ.
SABRINA CEJA VS BAKKAVOR FOODS USA INC ET AL
BC700615
Mar 21, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
Without citing any caselaw, Plaintiffs assert that individual Defendants can be liable for sexual harassment under FEHA even if they work at a religious non-profit that is exempt from FEHA. Plaintiffs have not provided legal support for their contention that an individual manager employed at a religious nonprofit can be sued under FEHA when the employer is exempt from FEHA. Moreover, the Tameny claim is only against the corporate Defendant.
MARINO, ET AL. V. NOVO MISSION INC., ET AL.
30-2020-01151655
Dec 04, 2020
Orange County, CA
Plaintiff alleges the following causes of action: (1) discrimination in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”); (2) retaliation; (3) sexual harassment; and (4) violation of public policy. Zwissig Defendants demur to the third and fourth causes of action per CCP §430.10(e). REQUESTS FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE Zwissig Defendants’ request for judicial notice is DENIED. Zwissig Defendants do not properly provide or identify the documents in their request. (Evid. Code §453; Willis v.
DENISE STILWELL VS TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX ET AL
BC690958
May 07, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
Sexual Harassment (First Cause of Action) Defendants argue Plaintiffs first cause of action for sexual harassment fails to plead sufficient facts to state a claim. The court agrees.
SHAUNETTE MILLER VS POMONA VALLEY HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.
22PSCV01233
Feb 01, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
BACKGROUND: Plaintiff commenced this action on October 3, 2018 against Casa Escobar Malibu Beach, LLC and Daniel Arias for (1) sexual harassment in violation of FEHA; (2) sexual assault and battery; (3) failure to prevent sexual harassment, sexual assault, and sexual battery in violation of FEHA; (4) discrimination on the basis of disability in violation of FEHA; (5) discrimination on the basis of gender in violation of FEHA; (6) retaliation for complaining of discrimination on the basis of disability in violation
MELISSA MEDINA VS CASA ESCOBAR MALIBU BEACH LLC ET AL
BC724039
Oct 15, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
of Public Policy, (12) Wrongful Constructive Termination in Violation of Public Policy, (13) Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodation in Violation of FEHA, and (14) Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process in Violation of FEHA.
JANE DOE, ET AL. VS LYNEER STAFFING SOLUTIONS, LLC ET AL.
19STCV31358
May 11, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
BC719746: On 8/29/18, in BC719746 (this case), Plaintiff Hamm filed her complaint against Defendants Condenser & Chiller Services, Inc., Mistras Group, Inc., Don Spence, and Chris Byrner for: (1) sexual harassment; (2) associational gender discrimination; (3) retaliation (FEHA); (4) failure to prevent discrimination, harassment, or retaliation (FEHA); (5) wrongful termination in violation of public policy (GC 12940); and (6) wrongful termination in violation of public policy (LC 1102.5).
SUHAILY HAMM VS CONDENSER & CHILLER SERVICES INC ET AL
BC719746
Jan 11, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
Second, plaintiff has not alleged facts sufficient to state a cause of action for hostile environment sexual harassment.
GUSTAVO HERNANDEZ VS CARPINTERIA UNIFIED SCHOOL ETC ET AL
1413531
Mar 26, 2013
Santa Barbara County, CA
DENY AS TO DAHLQUIST. c/a for quid pro quo sexual harassment = DENY AS TO PACIFIC LIFE AND DAHLQUIST. GRANT AS TO BELL. c/a for environmental sexual harassment = DENY AS TO PACIFIC LIFE AND DAHLQUIST. GRANT AS TO BELL. c/a for gender discrim--FEHA = DENY, TRIABLE ISSUE OF FACT RE WHETHER FAILURE TO PROMOTE WAS MOTIVATED BY INVIDIOUS DISCRIMINATION. COURT DISMISSES CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE COMMON LAW AND CONST. AS DUPLICATIVE. c/a for retaliation = GRANT AS TO ALL DEFEENDANTS.
PASSERI VS PACIFIC LIFE INSURANCE CO
CGC01322382
Aug 01, 2002
San Francisco County, CA
On February 3, 2020, Plaintiffs filed the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) against defendants Lyneer Staffing Solutions LLC, Employers HR LLC, Capacity West LLC, Juan Hilario, Jonathan Silva, Yvonne Canseco, and Does 1 to 100 alleging claims for: (1) sexual assault and battery; (2) sexual harassment in violation of the FEHA; (3) disability harassment in violation of the FEHA; (4) sex/gender discrimination in violation of the FEHA; (5) disability discrimination in violation of the FEHA; (6) retaliation
JANE DOE, ET AL. VS LYNEER STAFFING SOLUTIONS, LLC ET AL.
19STCV31358
Jul 02, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
sexual harassment training.
CINDY CHAN VS SUDOTOUCH, LLC, ET AL.
20STCV01863
Jan 25, 2021
day s
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
Summary adjudication is GRANTED. 3rd COA: FAILURE TO PREVENT SEXUAL HARASSMENT If an employer, or its agents or supervisors, knows or should have known of the harassing conduct, but fails to take immediate and appropriate corrective action it is a violation of FEHA. Gov. Code 12940(j)(1). Similarly, it is an unlawful employment practice for an employer "to fail to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent discrimination and harassment from occurring." Gov. Code 12940(k).
PEREZ VS STATE OF CALIFORNIA
37-2018-00040605-CU-OE-CTL
Aug 27, 2019
San Diego County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
On February 3, 2020, Plaintiff filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against BBC, Verdugo and Does 1-50 for: Sex Harassment in Violation of FEHA Sex Discrimination in Violation of FEHA Retaliation in Violation of FEHA Wrongful Termination Failure to Furnish Complaint Wage Statements Failure to Pay Overtime Compensation Failure to Pay Meal and Rest Period Premiums Waiting Time Penalties A Case Management Conference is set for December 15, 2020.
MARAM GHAZALEH VS BEST BEVERAGE CATERING, ET AL.
20PSCV00099
Dec 15, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
Issues No. 1: Sexual Harassment Defendants move for adjudication on the first cause of action on the grounds that the alleged sexual harassment is not actionable under FEHA because it is neither severe enough nor sufficiently pervasive to alter the condition of Plaintiff’s employment. FEHA prohibits “unlawful employment practices,” which includes harassment in the workplace based on, among other things, sex and gender. (Gov. Code § 12940(j)(1).)
TED LIN VS UNITED RESOURCES INFORMATION INC ET AL
BC717965
Dec 17, 2020
day s
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
in Violation of FEHA (7) Quid Pro Quo Sexual Harassment in Violation of FEHA (8) Failure to Prevent Harassment in Violation of FEHA (9) Associational Disability Discrimination in Violation of FEHA (10) Violation of Whistle Blower Protection Pursuant to California Labor Code § 1102.5 (11) Assault (12) Battery (13) Violation of Labor Code § 232 (14) Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy On June 7, 2023, Plaintiff served MDRN with the summons and FAC.
OLIVIA CECILIA HERNANDEZ VS MDRN STAFFING INC., ET AL.
23STCV07752
Jan 09, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiffs’ operative complaint alleges: C/A 1: All Defendants for Employment Discrimination—Sexual Harassment; C/A 2: All Defendants for Discrimination Based upon Disability; C/A 3: All Defendants for Failure to Accommodate Disability; C/A 4: All Defendants for Wrongful Termination in Violation of FEHA; C/A 5: All Defendants for Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy; C/A 6: All Defendants for Retaliation in Violation of FEHA; C/A 7: All Defendants for Retaliation in Violation of Gov’t Code
ELIZABETH TAYLOR ET AL VS ALKIVIADES DAVID ET AL
BC649025
May 16, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
Plaintiff asserts causes of action for (1) defamation, (2) retaliation in violation of LC §1102.5, (3) wrongful termination in violation of public policy, (4) FEHA sexual harassment, and (5) FEHA failure to prevent harassment. Defendants move for summary judgment or adjudication. Objections – Defendants object to Plaintiff’s evidence; all objections are overruled.
LINDA MUGGLI VS SILVERADO SENIOR LIVING MANAGEMENT INC ET AL
BC598431
Nov 10, 2016
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
That cannot be true as Plaintiff contends the alleged sexual harassment began in January 2017, and she allegedly reported the alcohol incident in December 2017. She could not have suffered retaliation via sexual harassment in January for something that did not occur until December. Similarly, she could not have experienced sexual harassment by Ruvalcaba, because she rejected his sexual advances. · Battery, Assault, and Sexual Battery are time-barred.
VERONICA BOLANOS VS UNIFIRST CORPORATION, ET AL.
19STCV19604
Oct 18, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff Aguilar’s complaint asserts causes of action for: (1) Sexual Harassment (2) Tortious Termination in Violation of Public Policy (3) Violation of Government Code §12940(k) [Failure to Prevent Sexual Harassment] (4) Failure to Pay Premium Overtime Wages (5) Failure to Provide an Accurate Itemized Wage Statement (6) Waiting Time Penalties (7) Failure to Provide Meal Periods and Rest Breaks (8) Sexual Assault and Battery (9) Unlawful, Unfair and Fraudulent Business Practices On August 21, 2017,
JOANN AGUILAR V. JAMES V. PIETRANTONIO, ET AL.
17CV312372
Jun 13, 2019
Presiding
Santa Clara County, CA
In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges 7 causes of action for: (1) sexual harassment in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) against all Defendants; (2) retaliation in violation of the FEHA against Beverly Terrace; (3) failure to prevent harassment and retaliation in violation of the FEHA against Beverly Terrace; (4) wrongful termination in violation of public policy against Beverly Terrace; (5) sexual battery against Linares; (6) battery against Linares and (7) intentional infliction of emotional
MIRIAM AVELAR ARVIZU VS BEVERLY TERRACE INC ET AL
BC691797
Nov 15, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
In the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), Plaintiff alleges seven causes of action for: (1) sexual harassment in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”); (2) sex/gender discrimination in violation of the FEHA; (3) retaliation in violation of the FEHA; (4) failure to take all reasonable steps to prevent discrimination, harassment and retaliation in violation of the FEHA; (5) wrongful termination in violation of public policy; (6) intentional infliction of emotional distress and (7) negligent infliction
SIA AMBER SOUTHERN VS TESSIE CLEVELAND COMMUNITY SERVICES CO
BC690804
Feb 14, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Please wait a moment while we load this page.